The Abilene reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1883-1888, 1887-11-03
Judge Nicholson's Record.
Editor Reflector :

some consideration, since 1t is designed
u li:tueDce the action of the voters in
the Eighth judicial district in the cleo
tiun o. l1Gge in said district at the
| next eIrci1n now close at hand.
There caIi be 40 question that the Office
OF d4stIlo J4dse Is more important 10
tile peopln iilaM any other within then
power 10 hestow, ard they should be
especially careful that the great power
and authority Of That Office should not
be conferred on an unit OF incapable
man. In order that there may be no
misunderstanding in regard TO the ju-
dicial record made by Hon. III. b.
Nicholson, the present incumbent and
a candidate for reelection, have eX-
amined his record before the Supreme
Court on error or appeal that have been
decided up to the present time. The
list is as follows:
c. II. Welch VS.. 7. C. Henry & Co.
ct. al. 81 rs. 425; affirmed. g. +.
Mead fo: plaintiff III error.
State vs.. Hughes, SO KS. %; re-
versed.
This was case under the prohibi-
tory liquor law of 1881, and was re-
vprSed by the Supreme Court for the
reason that the district judge during
the trial OF the cause, in the presence
and hearing of the jury empannelled
therein, directed the county attorney to
file infOrmatiOnS against two of the
witnesses for defendant for attempting
tO bride witness for the State, said
witness having testified that such an
attempt had been made. 1t was con-
sidered by the Supreme Court that such
action might have prejudiced the cause
of the defendant, as it tended to show
that the court believed that said wit
nesSes were untruthful.
Amsbangh vs.. Exchange Bank, 33
Ks, 100; reversed.
La this case, Amsbaugh, the defen-
dant, a former resident of Iowa, hav-
ing become largely indebted left the
State, with the intention of finding a
new residence in Texas or Kansas.
His wife and family remained and con-
tinued to occupy his residence. Some
three or four days subsequent to his de-
parture suits were commenced by the
plaintiff in this action in an Iowa court,
and the summons issued therein duly
served upon the defendants wife in
his absence. The Iowa statute, Simila!
10 our own, permitting such service
No appearance was entered for defen-
dant, and judgments were taken against
him. Subsequently he located at Dun
lap, Kansas, and suits were brought
against him on daily authenticated
transcripts OF the Iowa judgments.
The only defense made was that there
was no personal service on defendant
that is that 80 soon as he left the state
to seek new location, his residence H.
that state ceased, anG service on his
wife could not 5e legally made, an'
consequently the Judgments were void
There was no claim shat he was nu
justly indebted To the plaintiffs in tn
amount Su-d for. JCdge Nich0lS0;.
ruled that the defendant at the time OF
the service, yet had a residence with
his family, and gave judgment f0t
plaintiff, which judgment was reversed
10y the Supreme Court. 1t MAJ
be considered very doubtful wheth-
er this case will be considered
valuable rs precedent by the courts
of other states, as il is certainly op-
posed to the weight OF authority.
Doyle VS.. Doyle, SO KS, 72l; reversed
on question OF pleading.
Packard Us. Packard, "a Ks, SO; re
versed.
This was divorce case tried at Abb
iene in which judgment was entered III
favor of plaintiff, but On the adjourn
ment of the court for the term the
amount of allpony had not been fixed.
At the request and by the consent of
council this WAS agreed to be settled
At junction City. at date agreed upc,,,
when the Judge would be holding the
district court for Davis county. which
was accordingly done. The plaintiff,
beng dissatisfied with the amount CT
allowed, engaged new counsel,
the first counsel refusing to act further.
and petitiOned the court to vacate and
set aside the judgment, which the
court refused to do. The Supreme
Court say inter ala. at is also proper
for us to say that in setting aside and
the judgment for alimony, ant
for the support of the children, we do
not reflect upon the action of the dis
,rict judge at Junction City in ans
manner whatever, because all of tie
had at Junction City were
Dy and with the consent Of the attorneys
iOr plaintiff and the defendant and his
attorneys"
Sample VS.. Sample, "a rs, 20; affirm
I'd.
State VS.. j. B. Showers, "a KS, 269: |
'eversed.
This WAS prosecution for violation |
If Sec. 7 of the prohibitory liquor law
If 1881, which had been amended and
he original section repealed prior to |
he commencement of this action. The |
question involved was whether the |
aving clause OF the repeating act OF
he general saving statute were
ufficient 10 save prosecutions for |
-iolation OF said section, commenced |
Ifter its repeal. Upon this question
It that time, there was great diver
ity of opinion, net only among the
awyers of the state, but among the
Judges AS well, and as the case was one
f novel impression, and il was scarcely
o be presumed that the legislature in.
ended to pass an act Of amnesty for
riOr offenders. it was no discredit to
he ability Of the trial judge that he
hould be reversed in this case, more
since he erred in the
interest of morality and good govern
lent.
State VS.. Knauber, "a KS, 275; re-
ersed.
This case was similar to the last and
he same remarks apply.
Smith vs.. Findlay, "a KS, 316; re-
oreod